> Has the security team been informed that it includes a copy of the
> xpdf code?? From the debian/rules it looks like you build against
> libpoppler instead. You might want to get upstream to drop it from the
> tarball, since it seems libpoppler can be used.
For the records: [1], see [2].
1. ht
On Nov 18, 2007 4:50 PM, Simo Kauppi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would appreciate if somebody could take a look at the package and point out
> any packaging mistakes in it.
A review of your package:
Don't forget to send your patches upstream.
Might want to ask upstream to split FAQ 2-6 out i
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.8.1-2
of my package "swftools".
The package was uploaded once but it had a release critical bug. The
dependencies for the python extension were hard coded due to an problem at
build time. It turned out that there is no way to set the
Dear mentors,
I'm looking for a sponsor for the new version (0.8.1-2) of the swftools
package.
The package is linda/lintian clean.
Here is the changelog:
swftools (0.8.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Fixed the python-rfxswf dependencies (Closes: #427834)
* Changed the python-rfxswf to comply
4 matches
Mail list logo
